HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Oct 20, 2010 10:29:59 GMT -5
I'm obviously liberal and I would never claim that conservative judges like Scalia, Scalito (oops... Alito), Roberts, or even Justice Thomas don't know what is in the Constitution. Rather I disagree with their interpretation of it. See, e.g., Heller v. District of Columbia re: 2nd Amendment as an individual right. The Heller case was sound because the 2nd Amendment exists as a national right. Many liberals simply don't like the thought of gun ownership to begin with. But the Constitution doesn't lend itself to regional exceptions. If an administration had tried to forbid protests in the District for national security purposes, the Court would strike that down, too. Yes, the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment to the states as a "national right" through the 14th Amendment is another part of the debate on the issue. However, my point was I disagreed with the Justices holding that the 2nd Amendment text constitutes an individual fundamental right to bear arms. I believe it is rather a right to keep and bear arms as part of a "well regulated Militia" - i.e. state militias/National Guard Gun activists seem to forget the entire beginning of the Amendment: " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Notice especially the comma after the word "State", showing that the 2nd clause follows the 1st clause. Anyway, I didn't mean to start a debate on gun control. I just wanted to point out that all the Justices know what is in the Constitution, its just that they have different views on how the words are interpreted. As you can see from this specific example, there's no clearly right or wrong way to interpret certain passages of the document. This is where judges come in to play. I happen to disagree with where they came out on this interpretation.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 20, 2010 10:36:28 GMT -5
I read this exchange as not allowing her to badger him in the debate. Of course you did.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,453
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Oct 20, 2010 10:42:02 GMT -5
Well, did he pause for 30 seconds between her asking what the five freedoms were and when he told her to let the moderators ask the questions? That quote on paper doesn't remotely suggest that he didn't know them.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 20, 2010 12:35:02 GMT -5
It certainly does not leap off the page for me either, TC. O'Donnell would be wise not to try to suggest Coons is more stupid or out of the mainstream. It only highlights her own flaws as being more Palin than Palin.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 20, 2010 12:36:59 GMT -5
Well, did he pause for 30 seconds between her asking what the five freedoms were and when he told her to let the moderators ask the questions? That quote on paper doesn't remotely suggest that he didn't know them. Not that this is in any way provable or winnable, but I'll bet you $100 he didn't know them. No question in my mind. Let's not pretend that just because Christine O'Donnell is....well, Christine O'Donnell, that Coons is in any way some kind of great candidate. As hoyatables said, "I'm sorry, Delaware."
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 20, 2010 13:04:53 GMT -5
I'd take that bet in a heartbeat. While not determinative, Coons is a graduate of Yale Law School. It ain't a bad law school. He also clerked for a federal appellate judge, which is a decent proxy for his showing promise as a lawyer. I'd be willing to bet he could run circles around more than a few and probably could get into some of the nuances of separation between church and state off the cuff let alone a quick list out of the first amendment.
If the goal is to portray Coons as a dummy or uninformed, I think time could be better spent elsewhere.
Does anybody know what is going on in PA?
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Oct 20, 2010 13:17:32 GMT -5
Let's not pretend that just because Christine O'Donnell is....well, Christine O'Donnell, that Coons is in any way some kind of great candidate. As hoyatables said, "I'm sorry, Delaware." I know, it's really too bad there isn't a moderate candidate with tons of experience that would have won against either of these two in a landslide in a general election. Anyone giving either of these two the benefit of the doubt after watching the video is probably viewing it through some thick partisan glasses. O'Donnell's talking point was that the phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the constitution. While true, her response to Coons' "Government shall make no establishment of religion" remark shows that her understanding doesn't go much further than that exact phrase's exclusion. Coons was at least willing to to try pick up and move forward when he didn't know what he was talking about. But hey, Senators don't have to memorize the Constitution, so who really cares anyway?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,453
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Oct 20, 2010 13:48:27 GMT -5
Anyone giving either of these two the benefit of the doubt after watching the video is probably viewing it through some thick partisan glasses. What video are we talking about here? Wasn't this a radio debate? I've listened to the exchange - it happens at around 3:00 in on the second "Audio Here" link on WDEL, and it is absolutely clear that he's just not interested in getting into a back and forth with her. At 2:00 she says he asserted that all non-profits are faith based, at 2:38 he says that he never said that and he's not interested in getting into a back-and-forth with her and adds some stuff so he doesn't look like he hates faith based organizations, and then she plays the "can you name the five freedoms" thing that she clearly had prepped pretty much out of the blue. I couldn't figure out what it had to do with their discussion of federal funding for faith based organizations.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Oct 20, 2010 14:06:22 GMT -5
I'd take that bet in a heartbeat. While not determinative, Coons is a graduate of Yale Law School. It ain't a bad law school. He also clerked for a federal appellate judge, which is a decent proxy for his showing promise as a lawyer. I'd be willing to bet he could run circles around more than a few and probably could get into some of the nuances of separation between church and state off the cuff let alone a quick list out of the first amendment. That's the problem with Yale and other elite law schools, they teach there is nuance when there isn't one. It specifically says there will be no establishment of a state religion. Doesn't say there is a separation of church and state. The original intent was that all citizens would have freedom of religion without the state designating one religion as the official one. Just look at those countries where there is a state religion and see how different they are from us.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Oct 20, 2010 14:32:50 GMT -5
I'd take that bet in a heartbeat. While not determinative, Coons is a graduate of Yale Law School. It ain't a bad law school. He also clerked for a federal appellate judge, which is a decent proxy for his showing promise as a lawyer. I'd be willing to bet he could run circles around more than a few and probably could get into some of the nuances of separation between church and state off the cuff let alone a quick list out of the first amendment. That's the problem with Yale and other elite law schools, they teach there is nuance when there isn't one. It specifically says there will be no establishment of a state religion. Doesn't say there is a separation of church and state. The original intent was that all citizens would have freedom of religion without the state designating one religion as the official one. Just look at those countries where there is a state religion and see how different they are from us. Supreme Court decisions have the power of law in this country, and the Supreme Court has conclusively ruled on numerous occasions that the 1st Amendment requires the separation of church and state. It's similar to the freedom of expression - it's not explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but the Supreme Court has ruled that it is part the freedoms granted by the 1st Amendment. Saying "The Founding Fathers' intent was _______" is almost never true as a blanket statement, since the Founding Fathers were rarely in complete, unanimous agreement on anything.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 20, 2010 15:13:26 GMT -5
That's the problem with Yale and other elite law schools, they teach there is nuance when there isn't one. It specifically says there will be no establishment of a state religion. Doesn't say there is a separation of church and state. The original intent was that all citizens would have freedom of religion without the state designating one religion as the official one. Just look at those countries where there is a state religion and see how different they are from us. Part of the role of law schools is to teach the law, which may be why you may not see your point of view fully supported with respect to what you believe the law to be. If they are doing their job, hopefully the students can at least think critically about where things may be going astray. I can guarantee you that the people teaching First Amendment at Yale have studied the Constitution, the intent of the framers, and the case law more than you have. They also can run circles around 99% of the people on the planet.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 20, 2010 15:31:01 GMT -5
Part of the role of law schools is to teach the law Not if you're Lieutenant Commander JoAnne Galloway, it's not.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 20, 2010 16:05:04 GMT -5
I'd take that bet in a heartbeat. While not determinative, Coons is a graduate of Yale Law School. It ain't a bad law school. He also clerked for a federal appellate judge, which is a decent proxy for his showing promise as a lawyer. I'd be willing to bet he could run circles around more than a few and probably could get into some of the nuances of separation between church and state off the cuff let alone a quick list out of the first amendment. If the goal is to portray Coons as a dummy or uninformed, I think time could be better spent elsewhere. Does anybody know what is going on in PA? Really? I remember one of my friends telling about a Yale law student he was doing a summer clerkship with who was amazed about how many decisions were issued by the New York Supreme Court.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Oct 20, 2010 19:04:26 GMT -5
That's the problem with Yale and other elite law schools, they teach there is nuance when there isn't one. It specifically says there will be no establishment of a state religion. Doesn't say there is a separation of church and state. The original intent was that all citizens would have freedom of religion without the state designating one religion as the official one. Just look at those countries where there is a state religion and see how different they are from us. I can also assure you that Yale law school, as well as the rest of the Ivy League law schools, have taught their interpretations of the law and have successfully passed on their interpretations to nearly 100% of the current Supreme Court. It's an incestuous relationship leading to the situation that every decision and every precedent is based on Ivy League law, not the Constitution. Part of the role of law schools is to teach the law, which may be why you may not see your point of view fully supported with respect to what you believe the law to be. If they are doing their job, hopefully the students can at least think critically about where things may be going astray. I can guarantee you that the people teaching First Amendment at Yale have studied the Constitution, the intent of the framers, and the case law more than you have. They also can run circles around 99% of the people on the planet.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Oct 20, 2010 21:33:30 GMT -5
If anyone is really interested in what the Supreme Court Justices are faced with every day, and how they go about interpreting the Constitution, you might want to read the transcript of retired Justice David Souter's talk to Harvard Law's graduating class this past Spring. If the cases that reach the Supreme Court were as simple as seeing what the Constitution says about each one and then issuing a ruling, they would have been resolved long before and never gotten that far. One of Souter's two basic points -- which are extraordinarily well made and easily comprehensible to posters on this board, is that there are areas of tension within the Constitution itself. There are conflicting rights granted within the document. Souter believes this was intentional and also unavoidable. It is by resolving these confllcting rights that generations of Supreme Courts have established the law -- even "made" the law -- because that is the function of the Supreme Court. If you choose to respond critically to this post, please read his talk first. And bear in mind, he was nominated to the Court by President Bush the elder. Thank you. Text of Justice David Souter’s speech
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,756
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Oct 20, 2010 22:23:01 GMT -5
If you choose to respond critically to this post, please read his talk first. And bear in mind, he was nominated to the Court by President Bush the elder. Thank you. Supreme Court nominations are not always a sure thing. FDR nominated Hugo Black to support the New Deal and Eisenhower nominated a California GOP governor named Earl Warren. Neither turned out as planned. One thing Warren and Black shared? Neither went to Harvard or Yale Law, which has somehow become a de facto requirement to sit on the modern Court.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Oct 20, 2010 22:41:36 GMT -5
If you choose to respond critically to this post, please read his talk first. And bear in mind, he was nominated to the Court by President Bush the elder. Thank you. Supreme Court nominations are not always a sure thing. FDR nominated Hugo Black to support the New Deal and Eisenhower nominated a California GOP governor named Earl Warren. Neither turned out as planned. One thing Warren and Black shared? Neither went to Harvard or Yale Law, which has somehow become a de facto requirement to sit on the modern Court. Too bad you didn't bother to read the talk DFW. Nothing partisan about it.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,756
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Oct 20, 2010 23:03:43 GMT -5
Too bad you didn't bother to read the talk DFW. Nothing partisan about it. I wasn't referring to the non-partisan talk, only the reference that Souter was a Bush appointee. The concept of an appointee representing views different than the nominating President is political anathema today, when in fact there are a number of examples over the years.
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Oct 20, 2010 23:14:19 GMT -5
Anyone giving either of these two the benefit of the doubt after watching the video is probably viewing it through some thick partisan glasses. What video are we talking about here? Wasn't this a radio debate? I've listened to the exchange - it happens at around 3:00 in on the second "Audio Here" link on WDEL, and it is absolutely clear that he's just not interested in getting into a back and forth with her. At 2:00 she says he asserted that all non-profits are faith based, at 2:38 he says that he never said that and he's not interested in getting into a back-and-forth with her and adds some stuff so he doesn't look like he hates faith based organizations, and then she plays the "can you name the five freedoms" thing that she clearly had prepped pretty much out of the blue. I couldn't figure out what it had to do with their discussion of federal funding for faith based organizations. He was interested in getting into back and forths with her on other occasions, though. Coons' gaffe (IMO) is here: O'Donnell's most egregious is here, which is probably worth watching just for how pleased she is with herself around 7:17:
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 20, 2010 23:43:15 GMT -5
|
|